Case law

Hill v. Casler

102 F.2d 219 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1939

It is true, of course, as was said by us in Bryson v. Clarke, 25 C. C. P. A. … The appeal is dismissed as to counts 6 and 7, and as to count 4 the decision of the board is affirmed.

Peska v. Satomura

602 F.2d 969 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1979

This appeal is from an award of priority, by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Patent Interferences (“board”), of invention of the counts in issue (counts 2-7) to the senior party, Satomura. … Although Peska did not move to amend his first motion or file a petition to the Commissioner from the interference examiner’s refusal to transmit the motion to the primary examiner, Land v.

Application of Roy Sapp

324 F.2d 1021 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1963

The trenches between corrugations are V-shaped, the corrugations having relatively sharp ridges. The openings disclosed are of elongated rectangular form. … The board agreed that, since both forms of corrugations are disclosed to be old by the references, the particular form used, whether V-shaped or rounded, would appear to be largely a matter of choice.

In re Coey

190 F.2d 347 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1951

Lempco Products v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 6 Cir., 110 F.2d 307 ; In re Hock, 168 F.2d 540 , 35 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1235. We will consider the method claim 17 first. … Co. v. S. S.

Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 51 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 14, 1914

In United States v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Repogle

70 F.2d 375 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 30, 1934

The de-' cisión of the examiner was affirmed by the Board of Appeals of said office, and from the decision of the board the applicant has appealed to this court. Said claim 67 reads as follows: 67. … The rule recently laid down in Field v.

In re Kleinman

484 F.2d 1389 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 13, 1973

A composition of matter useful for application to injured mammalian tissue, consisting essentially of a solution of a monomer having the formula .CN ch2«=c / V C02R wherein R is alkyl, cyclohexyl, phenyl, 2 (2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy … As support for this argument they cite Dor-Seal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents, 240 F.Supp. 857 (D.D.C.1965). We find no merit in this position.

Atwood-Stone Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 472 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1914

D. 29339), United States v. Devereux ( 135 Fed., 428 ), and Malouf v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 437 ; T. D. 31502). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Barnett

155 F.2d 540 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1946

board’s decision. … Dececo Co. v. [George E.] Gilchrist Co., 1 Cir., 125 F. 293 ; In re Prescott, 51 App.D.C. 281 , 278 F. 590 ; In re McConnell, 40 F.2d 567 , 17 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1139.”

Chandler v. Mock

150 F.2d 563 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1945

See Jacke v. Long (Jacke v. Goldsborough), 111 F.2d 184 , 27 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1147; Payne v. Hurley, 71 F.2d 208 , 21 C.C.A.P.A., Patents, 1144. … Co. v.

Bentkamp v. United States

40 C.C.P.A. 70 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1952

In United States v. Reed & Keller, 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 504 , T. … Middleton v. United States, 28 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 214, C. A. D. 148; United States v. J. M. Lehman Co., Inc., 22 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 106, T. D. 47081.

Donna L. Jones (Kratz), of the Estate of James J. Jones, Deceased v. Arthur E. Kuprion

225 F.2d 485 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 15, 1955

The board correctly held that the count should be given the broadest interpretation which it reasonably will support, citing Scott v. Longtin, 52 App.D.C. 102 , 281 F. 606 , 1922 C.D. 145. … Clark v. Camras, 204 F.2d 273 , 40 C.C.P.A., Patents, 963.

In Re Patton

127 F.2d 324 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 27, 1942

In re Moeser, 27 App.D.C. 307 ; Hotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co., 160 F. 467 ; Berardini v. Tocci, 2 Cir., 200 F. 1021 ; In re Thomas J. Dixon, 44 F.2d 881 , 18 C.C.P.A., Patents, 711. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed,

Taylor & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 15 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1921

De Vries, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Motion to dismiss certain protests granted by the Board of General Appraisers. Importers appeal from the orders of the Board dismissing said protests. … —Marriott v. Brune ( 9 How., 619 ); Barney v. Rickard ( 157 U. S., 352, 364 ); G. Falk & Bro. v. United States ( 146 Fed., 484 ).

In re Sawyer

173 F.2d 1004 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1949

Chemicals Co. v. Carbide Corp., 315 U. S. 668, 676 . See also Parker and Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U. S. 87, 99 , and Flower v. Detroit, 127 U. S. 563, 571 . … See Avery v. Chase, 26 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 823, 101 F. (2d) 205, 40 USPQ 343 . See also Winkelmann v. Calvert, 33 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1206, 154 F. (2d) 1012, 69 USPQ 406 .

Application of Alvin E. Nehrenberg

280 F.2d 161 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1960

The requirements for a proper claim in such an art were summarized by the Supreme Court in General Electric Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Eger v. Watson

104 F.2d 953 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1939

Sweetland v. Don Cole, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 751, 53 F. (2d) 709; Garrett G. Mudd v. Otto A. Schoen, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 840, 54 F. (2d) 959; Atherton v. Payne, 19 C. C. P. A. … In re Key, supra; Bryson v. Clarke, supra.

Application of Glenn T. Seaborg

328 F.2d 996 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1964

This court affirmed the action of the board and summarized the position of the examiner and the board in the following language ( 37 C.C.P.A. at 1105 , 182 F.2d at 636 ) : “Both the Primary Examiner and the board were of … The Supreme Court, in United Carbon Co. v.

Rider v. Griffith

154 F.2d 193 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1946

Rinehart v. Gibson, 39 App. D. C. 358. *891 Proof of the fact inferred from circumstantial evidence cannot rest upon conjecture and speculation. Adair v. Reorganization Inv. Co., 125 F. (2d) 901. … Asbach v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 74 Iowa 251 , 37 N. W. 182 .

In re Boesch

617 F.2d 272 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1980

This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Appeals (“board”) which sustained the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of appellants’ claims 1 1 and 8-15 in view of Lamb 2 and … The Board The board agreed with the examiner that the claimed alloys were prima facie obvious from the prior art, noting that there was no substantial disagreement that both Pohl-man et al. and Lamb disclose alloys having